Mosley v. Wallace

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division

February 27, 2017

DEVIN MOSLEY, Plaintiff,v.IAN WALLACE, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ABBIE
CRITES-LEONI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff,
a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The motion is
granted. Plaintiff is assessed a partial initial filing fee
of $1.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
Additionally, the Court will require plaintiff to file an
amended complaint.

Standard
of Review

Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead
more than "legal conclusions" and
"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action [that are] supported by mere conclusory
statements." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim
for relief, which is more than a "mere possibility of
misconduct." Id. at 679. "A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense. Id. at 679.

When
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.

The
Complaint

Plaintiff
brings this action against several officials at
Missouri's Southeast Correctional Center and the former
Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections. He
alleges that another inmate threw hot water on his face
causing severe burns and vision loss. And he claims that
defendants refused to provide him with medical care.

Discussion

Plaintiff
has not adequately alleged each defendant's personal
involvement in the deprivation of his constitutional rights.
It is not sufficient to say that "defendants" acted
badly and caused harm. The complaint must state how each
individual defendant contributed to the constitutional
violation. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 676
(2009) ("Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to
Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead
that each Government-official defendant, through the
official's own individual actions, has violated the
Constitution."); Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d
174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995) ("a general responsibility for
supervising the operations of a prison is insufficient to
establish the personal involvement required to support
liability."). As a result, the complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Additionally,
naming a government official in his or her official capacity
is the equivalent of naming the government entity that
employs the official, in this case the State of Missouri.
Will v. Michigan Dept of State Police,491 U.S. 58,
71 (1989). "[N]either a State nor its officials acting
in their official capacity are 'persons' under §
1983." Id. As a result, the complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted against
defendants in their official capacities.

Because
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will allow
plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is warned
that the filing of an amended complaint replaces the original
complaint, and so he must include each and every one of his
claims in the amended complaint. E.g., In re Wireless
Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396
F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). Any claims from the original
complaint that are not included in the amended complaint will
be considered abandoned. Id. Plaintiff must allege
how each and every defendant is directly responsible for the
alleged harm. He should state the facts as short and plain as
possible, and he should state each allegation in a short,
numbered paragraph. In order to sue defendants in their
individual capacities, plaintiff must specifically say so in
the complaint. If plaintiff fails to sue defendants in their
individual capacities, this action may be subject to
dismissal.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in
forma pauperis [ECF No. 1.00] is GRANTED.

IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff must pay an initial filing
fee of $1.00 within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this
Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable
to "Clerk, United States District Court, " and to
include upon it: (1) his name;

(2) his
prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that
the ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.